University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
GSE Publications
Graduate School of Education
March 2007
Civic Virtue Out of Necessity: Patriotism and
Democratic Education
Sigal R. Ben-Porath
University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs
Recommended Citation
Ben-Porath, S. R. (2007). Civic Virtue Out of Necessity: Patriotism and Democratic Education. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/161
Postprint version. Published in Theory and Research in Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, March 2007, pages 41-59.
Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878507073608
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/161
For more information, please contact [email protected].
Civic Virtue Out of Necessity: Patriotism and Democratic Education
Abstract
In this paper I argue for considering patriotism as a civic virtue, and in particular I defend the view that
patriotism should be endorsed under certain conditions as a perspective suitable for teaching in public
schools.
My argument begins with an exposé to the debate on patriotism as virtue between those who endorse it as a
requisite of morality and those who reject it as an abomination. I defend a position which describes patriotism
as a civic virtue rather than a primary moral virtue. ['why a virtue?']. Next I consider what it means to be a
citizen in times of war, focusing on the changing conceptions and manifestations of patriotism under fire
['why a necessity?'] I proceed to suggest that the qualified notion of patriotism which I defend should affect
the way public schools create citizens, particularly in times of war ['why in schools?']. By 'affect' I do not mean
a wholehearted endorsement; rather I mean a sincere consideration, which starts from public schools' basic
democratic commitments, but nonetheless acknowledges the moral realities of a society at war, among them
the heightened sense of the love of country.
Comments
Postprint version. Published in Theory and Research in Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, March 2007, pages 41-59.
Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878507073608
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/161
CIVIC VIRTUE OUT OF NECESSITY: PATRIOTISM AND DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION
Sigal Ben-Porath
University of Pennsylvania
In this paper I argue for considering patriotism as a civic virtue, and in particular I
defend the view that patriotism should be endorsed under certain conditions as a
perspective suitable for teaching in public schools.
My argument begins with an exposé to the debate on patriotism as virtue between
those who endorse it as a requisite of morality and those who reject it as an abomination.
I defend a position which describes patriotism as a civic virtue rather than a primary
moral virtue. [‘why a virtue?’]. Next I consider what it means to be a citizen in times of
war, focusing on the changing conceptions and manifestations of patriotism under fire
[‘why a necessity?’] I proceed to suggest that the qualified notion of patriotism which I
defend should affect the way public schools create citizens, particularly in times of war
[‘why in schools?’]. By ‘affect’ I do not mean a wholehearted endorsement; rather I mean
a sincere consideration, which starts from public schools’ basic democratic commitments,
but nonetheless acknowledges the moral realities of a society at war, among them the
heightened sense of the love of country.
Why a Virtue?
The suggestion that patriotism is a virtue, I sense, requires immediate
qualification: I do not argue here for patriotism as virtue the way most famously
MacIntyre (1995) does – I do not suggest that patriotism is a moral requirement. When I
1
propose that patriotism be identified as part of a list of civic virtues, I qualify it as a
special or derivative virtue, namely, a virtue that is dependent on place and time rather
than a universal moral characteristic worthy of pursuing in most all human contexts. The
virtue of patriotism is correlated with what Scheffler (2003) calls ‘associative duties,’
which are a subclass of ‘special duties.’ MacIntyre like Scheffler, describes patriotism as
a derivation of associational duties: the nation has bestowed on me certain goods, both
material and other, and therefore I owe the nation my gratitude and loyalty. These are
expressed by a patriotic attitude, which is the preference for my nation over others.
Like other civic virtues, patriotism is dependent on a democratic context; like
tolerance it is best practiced in the context of a group which endorses democratic
premises. My current argument for patriotism as virtue goes against portrayals such as
Nussbaum’s who famously stated that an “emphasis on patriotic pride is both morally
dangerous and, ultimately, subversive of some of the worthy goals patriotism sets out to
serve -- for example, the goal of national unity in devotion to worthy moral ideals of
justice and equality.” (Nussbaum 1994) Contrastingly I suggest that patriotism should be
acknowledged by philosophers, educators and public intellectuals for what it is in this and
other countries, namely, a moral reality worthy of recognition, consideration and
endorsement into a democratic public sphere, including a comprehensive curriculum.
Simon Keller has recently suggested in an Ethics article that patriotism is a form
of loyalty not grounded in “neutral judgment that its object has certain valuable
characteristics,” although it is based on an assumption that its object – i.e. the nation –
does have those valuable characteristics. Thus the valuable characteristics, which could
include high moral standing, commitment to noble values etc., are not neutrally judged to
2
be presented in the nation’s acts or inclinations. Rather, they are merely presumed, and
patriotism is deduced from these unfounded presumptions. This logically shaky structure
provides the basis for morally weighty decisions, some of which are expected from nation
members (or the patriots among them). Consequently Keller concludes that patriotism is
bad faith, and suggests that any of its possible instrumental values (such as generosity or
a sense of belonging) can be outweighed by instrumental disvalues (such as war and
stupidity).
I believe Keller misses the point by focusing on patriotism as an individual
judgment. First, because patriotism is not a judgment but rather a sentiment. As such, it
does not require sound logical justifications, just as other sentiments we have are not
expected to be soundly justified by logical argumentations or factual references. What
needs to be justified is not patriotism itself, but rather its social repercussions (or as
Keller refers to them, values and disvalues). By contrast, racism can be rejected based on
an argument such as Keller’s. Racism is indeed a contention that one race is better than
the other, based on assumed superior characteristics of that race, and without any
reference to the actual justifiability of this assumption. In addition, racism carries grave
social consequences. We condemn racism because of its ‘bad faith’ constitution as well
as for its negative consequences (or disvalues) to the democratic public sphere, and to
individual members of the state. This comparison clarifies the weakness of Keller’s
argument against patriotism. While my nation may not indeed be morally superior to
other nations, it is very often superior to other nations for me. In espousing positive
sentiments to my nation as a home, I do not generate any moral and logical fallacies. As
for the social repercussions of my love of country, most of them can be amended by a
3
qualified construction of patriotism in the public debate. The notion of patriotism I wish
to justify is less open to Keller’s criticism about social disvalues, as it regards patriotism
not as an individual requisite but rather as a commitment to a shared project. This
approach to patriotism is distanced from Keller’s, without going all the way toward
MacIntyre’s claim that patriotism is one’s duty of loyalty and gratitude. Similarly
Nussbaum’s concern that patriotism goes against striving for justice could as well be
eased if patriotism is viewed as a shared project rather than as a moral requirement. What
I offer is not so much a middle way, as a contention that there is something to be taken
from each of the two perspectives (represented here through MacIntyre and Keller) when
considering the teaching of civic virtues in public schools.
Civic virtues are often regarded, mainly for educational purposes, as supplements
to civic knowledge and skills. Citizens need to know their government’s structure and
procedures; they need to acquire the skills to take part in these processes through civic
means. Some argue for the development of civic virtues to complete the set of
requirements for the formation of civicly minded citizenry. Many liberal political
theorists tend to avoid the discussion of civic virtues, preferring to focus on qualities of
the state and social procedures rather than on the soulcraft of citizens. This by no means
is a general reluctance: Rawls for one identifies a number of civic virtues, including
reasonableness and fair-mindedness. More recently, Richard Dagger described republican
liberalism as a civic approach that is founded on civicly minded citizens who have
developed a set of civic virtues, first among them the respect for each other’s rights. But
even among those philosophers who cite civic virtues as part of their perspective, the love
of country is not usually considered a virtue. Nussbaum and other liberals reject
4
patriotism in favor of universalism, cosmopolitanism or other related values, suggesting
that “justice and equality… would be better served by an ideal that is in any case more
adequate to our situation in the contemporary world, namely the very old ideal of the
cosmopolitan, the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings
in the entire world.” (Nussbaum 1994) Following the Kantian tradition some
contemporary liberal (and radical) authors suggest that education should aim at
overcoming national attachments, whether in favor of cosmopolitan affiliation or of an
individualized, ‘unencumbered’ self (Yack, forthcoming). For some critics, patriotism is
merely “a primordial attachment to a territory and a society” (Janowitz 1983, 8) Many
argue for mutual respect, tolerance, an ability to compromise and other attitudes or
sentiments as virtues that offer a sound basis for the proper functioning of civil society.
To include patriotism in this list means to suggest that the love of one’s particular nation
is another such component, and that in order to be a good citizen of this particular nationstate one should preferably develop a sentimental affiliation with the nation. Some
authors indeed suggest that patriotism (or devout membership in a nation) is compatible
with liberalism, although they do not always view it as a virtuous position. Miller, Tamir
and others try to interlace national sentiments with liberal values, to the point of
suggesting that the two can be mutually reinforcing. Some suggest that ‘liberal
nationalism’ is not only desirable but also possible, as the affiliation with one’s nation
can support a commitment to the liberal values which one associates with the nationstate. In this they share Gutmann’s perception that patriotism should be constrained by
democratic or liberal values. Patriotism, Gutmann (1999, 312) maintains, “is a sentiment
rather than a moral perspective.” To properly respond to this sentiment in the context of
5
education, theorists must explicitly discuss civic virtues as part of the broader picture of a
just society. They should not (and usually do not) defend it in its basic expression of “my
country, right or wrong.” This would create a risk of uncritical acceptance of wrongful
actions by the state. “A democratic education opposes this kind of patriotism when it
encourages students to think about their collective lives in morally principled terms.”
(Gutmann 2002, 49) Thus democratic education constrains patriotic education with the
principles of a democratic polity.
By contrast, MacIntyre suggests the possible endorsement of patriotism as a moral
requisite of a good citizen, and indeed of a moral human being. He contends that if it is a
virtue, “patriotism is one of a class of loyalty-exhibiting virtues” (1995, 4) in which an
individual is committed to develop an appreciation of her nation because of particularized
goods she has received from it. The depiction of patriotism as a sentimental commitment
arising from past goods bestowed on one by the state equates the nation to a family in
which children owe their parents gratitude for their contributions to their growth and
well-being. This equation is justifiably rejected by many theorists as unfounded,
inaccurate and misleading. Let me point to what most theorists miss in their critique, and
what seems to me to be the weakest aspect of this strongest description of patriotism, and
than try to amend it. This characterization of patriotism as an associative virtue related to
gratitude is what draws most of the criticism against describing it as a civic virtue. The
distinctive feature of this defense of patriotism which sets it apart from other civic virtues
is its temporality. While other civic virtues are described and justified in a forwardlooking manner, patriotism is defended by turning to the past. Other virtues – fair
mindedness, or respect for rights – are considered to be tools for generating a desirable
6
public sphere, for example, or as attitudes that support the possibility of a civil form of
deliberation. They are virtues in both a contextual and an instrumental sense – they are
desirable if they are developed in a social context of democracy (or liberal democracy);
and they are desirable only inasmuch as they support and enhance the possibility of a
stable, flourishing civil society and democratic governance. I suggest that this temporal
difference is the main weakness of the patriotism of the sort that MacIntyre and Scheffler
defend (and Keller and Nussbaum criticize). And it too can be corrected by considering
patriotism as a commitment to a shared project, a forward-looking civic virtue. By
describing patriotism as a future-oriented civic virtue arising from a commitment to a
shared national project, it can be introduced into the sphere of liberal civic virtues, along
with fair mindedness, a public spirit, mutual respect and the other more widely accepted
virtues. Much like the other virtues, a certain form of patriotism is required for the
preservation and thriving of a democratic society. A stronger case can be made for this
claim in times of war (as I argue in the next section). Thus, whereas Keller would rid the
public sphere of patriotism altogether, and Gutmann would constrain patriotism by the
principles of liberal-democracy, I would offer it an equal standing among the civic
virtues. When properly developed and manifested, patriotism supports some of the aims
of a democratic polity, much like tolerance, concern for the public good, or respect for
rights.
Patriotism as I understand it is a sense of affiliation with one’s nation as an actual
geopolitical phenomenon from which one receives various material and other goods, as
well as a commitment to this nation as a shared project with one’s fellow countrymen.
This sentiment is woven of past experiences, present perceptions, and future expectations,
7
and it relates to one’s understanding of her identity as well as to her beliefs about her
relations to others (who she perceives of as nation members).
Patriotism is thus an element of personal identity, as Richard Rorty suggests,
much as it is a component of political organization and mobilization; it is comprised of a
sense of personal gratitude for past acts (owed or offered) but also as importantly a
commitment for common participation in the continued shared project, based on a
perception of shared fate. It is thus a civic virtue, constrained like other virtues only by its
perceived effects on the constitution of a desirable public sphere.
Just like tolerance could be abused to pursue inappropriate goals, so patriotism
can be the last refuge of the scoundrel. However, theorists and politicians do not abandon
tolerance in the face of its abuses but rather strive to both cultivate and constrain it in an
effort to best apply it to the democratic circumstances at hand. Tolerance can be abuse to
promote illiberal or even anti-democratic activity; it can allow for groups who oppress
their own members to freely do so; it can let groups who preach discrimination against
other individuals and groups to flourish. The common response among citizens and
theorists who care about democracy is not to forgo all attempt to argue for and implement
tolerance. Rather the common, and justified, response is to clarify, qualify and implement
tolerance in ways that would support rather than hinder the democratic aims of justice.
Similarly patriotism should be viewed as a special virtue, aiming to point at its
moral and political instrumental significance while preventing some of its less desirable
repercussions. Patriotism is indeed a sentiment, as Gutmann claims, but so is respect.
When considering civic virtues, including sentiments and attitudes, we are interested in
the public manifestations, and their effects on the democratic character of the state.
8
When patriotism is properly conceptualized as a shared project, contributing to
the generation and preservation of a democratic public sphere, it supports deliberation,
mutual respect and stability. It thus becomes part of the package of civic virtues that
support a democratic public sphere.
I now consider why during times of conflict this virtue stands out as deserving
stronger public and scholarly attention.
Why a necessity?
The conflation of patriotism with liberal values is doubtful in peaceful times, and
the circumstances of an armed or a protracted conflict clearly do not support this
portrayal. To the contrary, war, security threats and protracted conflicts generate a
narrow, often illiberal form of patriotism which is part of what I call ‘belligerent
citizenship.’
In wartime more than in other time, certain forms of patriotism may in fact be part
of the manifestations of good citizenship, and indeed that it could be described as a
virtue, because of its contribution to the maintenance of a flourishing, stable democratic
society. Patriotism is both a moral reality and a valuable factor in a democratic polity,
and more so in times of conflict.
Wartime generates a set of social processes which can result in
reconceptualization of the relations between individual and state, termed here ‘belligerent
citizenship.’ This conceptualization of citizenship can be described as a return to a crude
Hobbesian model of the state, as a protector of individuals’ lives from the dangers
embedded in the ‘state of nature’ and provide them with an opportunity to live more
9
peacefully. The expectations of citizenship in times of war narrow down to resemble this
type of relations with the state, in which government can expect much of its citizens in
exchange for their protection from violent death.
Thus a belligerent conceptualization of citizenship emerges as a response to perceived
threats to national security. Regarded through this narrow lens, the first responsibility of
the state toward its members, as it is quickly reconfigured in the public sphere, is to
protect their lives. This responsibility overrides the demand for civil liberties, and those
are often steamrolled over by the overpowering sense of urgency to fight for survival (see
Hardin 2004). The support of free speech diminishes, both through the criminalization of
incitement, and through the suppression of deviating opinions via social mechanisms
which command unity of voice and subscription to a narrow form of patriotism.
Belligerent citizenship is distinctly characterized by a reinterpreted notion of three key
components of democratic citizenship, namely participation, unity and solidarity (also
known as patriotism) and public deliberation. In times of war these take the form of an
emphasis on citizens’ contribution to the country rather than on voluntary participation;
support for social unity and patriotism over diversity; and consequently, the
discouragement of deliberation. (In Israel, see Barzilai 1992; Kimmerling 1993)
This description of belligerent citizenship does not seem to coincide with the liberal
values of democratic citizenship, nor does it seem to support the outline I described of
patriotism as civic virtue. By presenting the least favorable depiction of patriotism, I hope
to render my consequent defense of it as civic virtue more credible and less suspect of
sentimentality and bad faith. Thus, before I go on to defend patriotism in the context of
war despite these apparent inadequacies, let me expand a little more on what I view as the
10
most significant disvalue of belligerent patriotism, namely, its incongruence with
autonomy.
Acting autonomously, Rawls (1971, 516) tell us, “is acting from principles that we would
consent to as free and equal rational beings.” Joseph Raz suggests that autonomy is
comprised of the ability and the opportunity to choose among morally significant options.
One of his counter examples is particularly helpful for my discussion. Raz describes a
woman on a deserted island, who is hounded by a fierce beast (Raz 1988, 373-4). All she
can do is plan the next step of her escape. Although no visible coercion is involved, we
still cannot describe her life as autonomous. Raz’s view is that a life of struggle and
suffering, with no morally significant alternatives to choose from, cannot be an
autonomous life.
This view has some productive implications to a variety of human circumstances,
including extreme poverty, abuse and various forms of social coercion. Here I focus on
the question of developing a sense of affiliation with the state, or national membership,
which make up the required attitudinal basis for the development of patriotism. This is
the case both in peaceful times and in times of war, or a protracted conflict. Ongoing
circumstances of conflict tend to generate a sense of vulnerability, fear and sometimes
despair. It posits the state as a benevolent benefactor, who can potentially save the group
or its members from immediate threats.
Can the development of patriotic sentiments in these circumstances be considered
autonomous? Brighouse (2000, 66) discusses the requirement of free formation of
preferences, and suggests that “it is true of the highwayman’s victim that she genuinely
11
wants to give up her worldly wealth when presented with the options ‘your money or
your life’. But her preference, while genuine, is not fully autonomous.”
Consequently, some criticize the belligerent forms of patriotism as unreflective,
uncritical, jingoistic and illiberal. Many are concerned with the priority given in the
belligerent public sphere to security and national sentiment over individual rights and
liberties. Although I share many of these concerns, I believe the desirable response is
more complex then the one offered so far in the scholarly and public debate. I suggest
that at least the type of patriotism that is part of the knee-jerk response to conflict – the
rally around the flag, the sense of unity, the feeling that ‘we’re all in this together’ –
should more accurately be portrayed not as bad faith, as Keller suggests, but rather as
tough luck. In other words, wartime patriotism is not a simple jingoistic uncritical
response, worthy of dismissal or harsh criticism, but rather a moral reality which arises
from socio-psychological needs, and demands our attention and public philosophical
consideration. Analyzed carefully, it can be shown to carry significant socio-political
repercussions, including a host of potential advantages and civic opportunities.
Wartime creates a special need to protect democratic commitments in a contextual
way, responding to the unique social circumstances of war. It creates a greater need to
foster and enhance civic relations among members of the nation, to expand the public
agenda, to encourage participation and engagement, and to support an inclusive
conception of citizenship. The ways in which civil society and the education system
perceive of citizenship and national membership can affect their ability to foster these
commitments. It is thus crucial to maintain that the special identification with one’s
country is not only a sentimental response to security threats (although it is partly that
12
too). It is also a mechanism for sustaining the strain conflict creates. Dismissing these
sentiments or ignoring them in the public sphere and in the classroom may create
antagonism, it may backfire, or it may render the civic educational effort detached and
irrelevant. It would be more useful as well as justified to work with the national
sentiments (rather than against them or apart from them). This is even more important in
wartime than in peaceful eras, for those emotions take a more central place in the public
life of a nation at war, serving the needs of endurance through periods of uncertainty and
threats.
Of course, not all moral realities should be endorsed. Racism is a constant moral
reality in this country as in many others. The mere fact that some people – maybe many
people – strongly support racist views and hold them as defensible and even
indispensable, does not turn them into virtues in any way. They remain abominations that
deserve nothing but rejection as they are inherently contradictory to democratic values.
Some theorists like Keller seem to regard patriotism as belonging to the same class of
moral realities that need to be uprooted. They seem to equate the love of country with
chauvinism and uncritical endorsement of the nation. But if we accept politicalpsychological evidence (Bar-Tal 1996) on the merits of this sense of patriotic unity to
endurance in wartime we need to develop a more careful approach that does not reject
patriotism, particularly in times of conflict when these values become stronger and more
urgently needed. At the same time, we should not assume a compatibility of patriotism
and liberalism, as this assumption is not readily warranted by wartime expressions of
belligerent patriotism. We need to recognize the problematic nature of wartime patriotism
while acknowledging its value to the individual and to the short-term endurance goals of
13
society. From there we need to structure a political educational process that would
expand these values to the long-term, democratic (and possibly peaceful) vision of the
state. In other words, we need to find ways to overcome the disvalues of wartime
patriotism and to reconcile its immediate advantages with the long term aims of
democratic, peaceful existence. By so doing, as I hope to demonstrate, we can also ease
the tension between patriotic unity and the facilitation of autonomy.
The instrumental emotional and social values of wartime patriotism warrant a
serious consideration by the main social institutions, in particular the public education
system. Most theorists regard the conceptualization of citizenship as identity not solely as
a descriptive project, but rather as an educational endeavor. Schools, like other public
institutions, need not endorse this stance uncritically, for it carries significant
instrumental disvalues as well, in particular, a diminished regard for individual liberties,
and a narrowed public agenda. However, they need to find ways to foster and expand it,
in order to allow for it to be expressed alongside the other civic virtues, thus supporting
the flourishing of a democratic society even in times of war.
One of the most greatest challenges to expressing diverse conceptions of
patriotism in schools arises in the field of social studies, and particularly in the study of
national history (see discussion in Smith 2003). Let us take a look at the debate over
teaching history in public schools, and how the notion of patriotism as a shared project
which I defend would affect it.
Teaching History in Times of War – The Post 9/11 American Debate
14
The challenges educators and scholars regularly face in the realm of patriotic
education, are posed with a greater sense of urgency in times of conflict, when patriotism
is perceived to be a national security matter. As is stated in the opening remarks of
Education for democracy, After September 11 “The issue of defending our democracy
was no longer an abstraction, the question of civic education no longer an option.”(Albert
Shanker Institute 2003, 3) “It may be” the study continues, “that September 11 presents
us with a moment, an opportunity for civic renewal.”(ibid., 9)
In a review of history textbooks published by the conservative Fordham
foundation, Finn laments the use of third person language in describing historical events,
such as when portraying 9/11 as a “tragedy” that “happened”:
I've dubbed such verb usages the "irresponsible impersonal" voice
and, regrettably, they're more norm than exception in U.S. history
textbooks… things happen in these books (though not necessarily in
chronological order), but not because anybody causes them. Hence,
nobody deserves admiration or contempt for having done something
incredibly wonderful or abominably evil …The result: …a collective loss
of American memory (Ravitch 2004).
Finn is disheartened by this form of history he finds in high school textbooks
because he worries that these book commonly fail to “establish a narrative of events with
a strong sense of context.” Other studies expressed similar concerns before 9/11: “Faith
in progress and patriotic pride have vanished,” bemoans a 2000 report on history
textbooks (Sewall 2000)
15
On the other hand, authors like Chomsky and Giroux have been warning against
the stifling effects of the same patriotic pride that Finn wishes for, at times of peace and
even more urgently in times of conflicts. Where Finn (and other conservative
commentators) finds no sense of cause and an alarming loss of national pride, Chomsky
(and other left wing commentators) sees a vehement attack on democratic ideals through
uncritical endorsement of patriotism. Chomsky (2000, 28) commented: “True democratic
teaching is not about instilling patriotism.” In a similar vain, Giroux criticizes the blunt
response of the American administration and the public sphere to the September 11
attacks, and the fear and hatred they brood. In an all-encompassing critique of the rise of
patriotic pride, the attack on free speech, the threat on academic freedom and other
disconcerting effects, Giroux (2003) argues that “ignorance and arrogance are no
substitute for reasoned analyses, critical understanding, and an affirmation of democratic
principles of social justice.” (25)
These two contrasting perspectives suggest that the teaching of patriotism should
either be endorsed without questions, through the narrowest understanding of the term, or
it should be rejected as a jingoistic attempt to quell legitimate political criticism and
independent thought. Because these are some of the most visible perspectives in the field,
many history teachers and school administrators find it hard to navigate between the two,
sensing that these are the only alternatives. Teachers considering the liberal perspective
such as that of Giroux or Loewen (1995) and the more conservative one such as Finn’s or
Ravitch’s (2003) have a hard time figuring out what students should ideally know about
the nation’s history. The first accuses existing history textbooks and standards as overpatriotic, shallowly optimistic and hero-worshiping; the second warns from a tendency to
16
reduce history to a narrow list of disconnected facts which are so focused on equal
representation that they fail to convey any sense of national narrative. Both reject
‘ideology’ as an unfit component for textbooks and classroom interaction, and insist that
teaching materials should stir clear of ideological partialities. The navigation between the
bluntly termed ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ conceptions of history and history-teaching
becomes more acute in times of national conflict, when the pressure to teach ‘the correct
form’ of history or to inculcate the ‘required values’ – be them liberal commitments to
civil liberties, or conservative forms of patriotism – are deemed essential to national
survival. The more professioanlist view, such as Schlesinger’s plea to teach history for
it’s own sake, its tangibility questionable even in peaceful times, becomes impossible
(and, I suggest, not altogether desirable) in times of conflict. In another widely-circulated
publication of the Fordham foundation, the author claims that “In the wake of September
11” the influence of liberal scholars and authors is “more destructive than ever.” He
explains:
Young Americans are being consciously taught to hate and be
ashamed of their nation's history and to believe that America is a uniquely
evil and oppressive society. (2003)
Thus most available texts, including the publications cited above, offer a strict
choice between “moral relativism” and “moral clarity” if they are conservative; or
between “critical thought” and “jingoism” if they are liberal. There is no need here for a
detailed exploration of the reasons why critical thinking does not have to amount to moral
relativism, in which any “opinion – your, mine, Osama Bin-Laden’s” (Stern 2003, 35) is
similarly respected; and why a call for a contextual understanding of history through
17
various tools, including heroic tales, does not have to amount to “lies my teachers told
me.” Clearly what educators and educational administrators could use is a nuanced,
contextualizes discussion of patriotism in times of conflict and beyond them. When
teaching patriotism as civic virtue, we should heed Murphy’s warning about textbooks’
tendency to distort, sanitize or falsify history in order to advance particularistic (or bigot)
ideologies. Not only does a sanitized version of history (or literature, or biology) subvert
the truth, proving it intellectually problematic, it also stands the risk of creating an
attitudinal backlash, generating an abandonment of the desired approach (such as
patriotism) altogether.
In the context of conflict the need to endorse an expansive notion of education is
more pressing, as the list of topics considered worthy of public debate narrows down,
along with the scope of perspectives on those topics. The expansive form of civic
education is aimed at strengthening attitudes necessary for national survival, both in the
short- and the long term sense. The more immediate or short-term aim of survival and
endurance requires learning to feel and be united as a nation, believe in the just causes
that guide the nation, and endorse a positive version of its narrative – in short, they
require patriotic unity. The long-term values and perceptions required for national
endurance in times of conflict are primarily related to democratic principles, practices
and commitments. Both types of aims must be endorsed for civic education to be
worthwhile, particularly in times of war. Abandoning the short-term aims may increase
society’s vulnerability and weaken the perseverance powers of the nation and its
members. Abandoning the long term aims may render the nation vulnerable to a
18
diminished sense of purpose, a decline in civic engagement, and a lack of common
political basis.
The teaching of a sentimental history or a national narrative may seem to offer a
satisfactory response to both liberal and national demands. It could focus students’
attention on the national story of their community, while encouraging them to endorse
their existing affiliation to the group. Such endorsement, according to defenders of the
compatibility thesis, should not take place at the expense of democratic affiliations. Kersh
(2003, 1) for example suggests that “any project promoting responsible citizenship must
address issues of national belonging in explicit detail.” However this perspective cannot
offer an appropriate solution to the problem at hand, namely, the inclusion of both
democratic perspectives and patriotic affiliations in the teaching of civics and history.
First, the teaching of sentimental history goes against teaching critical thinking, and even
against the very notion of autonomy. As Brighouse convincingly claims, “[the state]
wrongs the child by conditioning his or her consent to the state, thus jeopardizing his or
her ability to give the freely offered consent that is the marker of liberal legitimacy.”
(2003, 165-6) Many have argued similarly about the teaching of patriotism as well as
autonomy, that by cultivating it the state may undermine its own legitimacy. That is
because legitimacy has to rest on a consent given autonomously by the citizens. When the
conditions for this consent are instilled by the state, the consent can hardly be regarded as
free, and thus does not suffice as a legitimizing factor.
In addition, teaching sentimental history is both politically and pragmatically
flawed. It is politically unwarranted because it tends to silence dissenting perspectives of
history, and thus suppress pluralism for the sake of expressing a narrow and shallow
19
notion of patriotic pride. It is pragmatically flawed because teaching a noble version of
history, creating a pantheon of heroes that are expected to confer legitimacy on the state’s
institutions (as Galston suggests) stands a grave risk of promoting, in the long run, the
very opposite sentiments than it sets up to promote. The “spirit of detached spectatorship”
which Rorty (1999) laments, the “cynicism that sugar-coated history produces when
youngsters get older” (Nash, 1999, 15) results from the sobering realization of the
complexities of history which were concealed by the teachers and textbooks. This change
of perspective that occurs to students often in a later stage of their studies can render
them cynical, detached or hostile to the aims of their patriotic education.
So much may be true in peace as much as in wartime. But wartime creates further
challenges to the possibility of convergence among civic education, patriotic education
(or the inculcation of national sentiments) and democratic education. The fundamental
challenge that wartime presents to the education system is that of preserving democratic
commitments. The propensity of citizens and government alike during wartime is to
waive or suspend some of their democratic commitments in lieu of security concerns. The
focal point of the relations between government and civil society changes in the direction
of heavier expectations from citizens to contribute to the state; a diminished public
agenda and a restricted public deliberation; lack of transparency and a weakened
commitment to civic liberties. Confronting these problematic aspects of democratic
citizenship with a sentimental version of national history does not seem to be a promising
educational endeavor. The attempt to unite the citizenry in patriotic allegiance
presupposes a conception of citizenship as a given aspect of personal and group identity.
It assumes a unified understanding of national identity, history and tradition (see also
20
Archard, 1999). This presupposition goes not only against pluralism, but also against the
democratic aims of expansive education. If we are to teach citizenship as shared fate – a
basic requirement of expanding the study of civic education to include both patriotism
and democratic values – we cannot rely on the determinate traditions which provide the
basis for the sentimental teaching of history.
Moreover, teaching sentimental versions of history goes against the common
good and national interests, by way of enhancing the endorsement of the war culture. The
education system has long been charged to be a leading cause for the perseverance of war
(Marsden 2000). In 1926, Scott wrote: “It may be that nationalistic education is the chief
underlying cause of the war.” (255) A decade later, Schlesinger observed: “Among the
possible causes of war, education holds a particular and significant place . . . for in so far
as it embodies dangerous nationalistic prejudices, it is a means of disseminating them
constantly to all the people. It is the seed of international discord for both present and
future generations.” (1938, xiii) Ruth Firer eloquently demonstrates how education, as a
“part of any hegemonic culture, very often reflect(s) and reproduce(s) it.” (2002, 56) Firer
demonstrates how Israeli textbooks and curricular guidelines have such perpetuating
effect in circumstances of war. By failing to balance the social need of unity and mutual
support, expressed by the narrowing conception of patriotism, with the requirement of
preserving a democratic public sphere, the education system contributes to the war
culture, and thus betrays the long-term perseverance interests of society.
Alternatively, by teaching citizenship and nationalism as shared fate, the public
education system can endorse the long-term democratic aims of public education along
with supportive the short-term needs of belligerent citizenship. This approach would
21
mandate teaching history through a nuanced understanding of nationhood as a mutual
social construct that is both informed by and constructive of individual and group identity
(see also Smith, 2003). This constructive suggestion is meant to foster unity without
abandoning critical perspectives, and to teach wider, more open forms of patriotism that
still satisfy the moral realities and social expectations of wartime. Teaching a pluralist
version of history that endorses national identification has to be practiced with a
background understanding of nationhood as a communal historical enterprise of shared
fate. In this sense, the teaching of a ‘usable past’ (to use Fullinwider’s term) would
constitute the study of history as a continual interpretation of nationality as a shared
project. It requires constructing the curriculum with an understanding of citizenship and
national affiliation not only as a given, essential part of an individual’s identity, but also
as part of her fate as shared with other members of her community. As this is a more
flexible conception of national affiliation, it allows for accommodations of various subgroups and diverse narratives into the teaching of history (and civics). While pluralistic
and diverse, it does not shun away from fostering patriotism as an integral part of public
education, with the understanding that some periods in a nation’s existence – such as
wartime – give rise to further emphasis on this aspect of education. Even in such times,
however, critical thought and even more so pluralism need not be abandoned, for the
shared fate of the national group corresponds with the diverse aims of the groups that
make up the nation. In other words, when patriotism is derivative not solely of identity
but of shared fate, it can be taught as a flexible notion that accommodates qualified both
liberal-democratic perspectives and conservative ones.
22
Why in Schools?
What should school children be expected to know about their nation, its culture
and norms? Should history and social studies instill patriotism or, alternatively, offer an
exercise in critical thinking? Similarly divisive questions arise in the context of civic
studies: should students focus on the formal functions of government and the
technicalities of democratic processes - relatively manageable and measurable tasks? Or
should they devote their time to ‘learning the conflicts’ (see Graff 1992) and try to
unravel the development of ideas such as freedom or democracy in American history (or
globally)? Should teachers inculcate virtues, or teach an appreciation of complex
meanings and manifestations of ideas?
These and other related debates have been brewing for decades in the academe
and the public and have spiked after 9/11. The changing conceptions of citizenship, civic
virtue, patriotism and national affiliation that are characteristic of wartime are reflected in
books and mass media discussions.(Giroux 2003; Ignatieff 2004; Ravitch and Weiner
2005) As in many other public debates, perspectives often collapse to fit familiar
conservative-liberal lines. It is common to hear the one side advocating the stressing of
American virtues and the great heroes of the past, and blaming the other side as moral
relativist, unpatriotic and demonizing the nation; while the other side focuses on critical
capacities and multiple perspectives, depicting the former perspective as jingoistic and
nurturing unrightful sentiments.
Some of them strive to unpack the question, what are the needs of a society at war
as they pertain to the education system? If my argument for regarding patriotism as civic
virtue is correct, does it necessarily follows that it needs to be taught in schools? I would
23
like to suggest that it is so, and that schools indeed can provide a valuable service to
society at war if they sensitively navigate their way between society’s pressing demands
(or interests) and its longer term needs (again, or interests).
Perseverance can be determined as any society’s first need. However, in war the
implications of this need to the political sphere are blurred; additionally, the educational
implications of this prerequisite can vary widely. What does it mean for a society to
survive? The survival of a group is in a sense a metaphor, as long as physical extinction
of all members is not an immediate threat; the focus of the discussion of group survival is
commonly cultural rather than physical. What is at stake is the survival of the national or
cultural group as it exists at present. This is the source of the prerequisite to preserve the
social structure, the core values or the political ideology that represent the group’s
‘spirit.’ The need to preserve society as it is, including the social ability to reconstruct
and critically reform itself through its proper institutions, is part of the quest for survival,
second only to actual physical survival of the nation.
The crude educational interpretation of the quest for national survival is
manifested in the wartime argument that the state, in order to survive, needs to cultivate
in future citizens the emotional disposition that would enable them, even compel them, to
defend their country. It is based at minimum on the suggestion that even if patriotic
education is objectionable in times of peace, the social needs during conflict call for its
endorsement because it may help support the country through the challenges of war. This
argument represents one of the undesirable aspects of belligerent citizenship. The
espousal of unifying patriotism and other aspects of belligerent citizenship by the public
schooling system is perilous, for it impedes democratic justice, as well as replicates the
24
circumstances of conflict. Democratic education entails facilitating democratic
inclinations, not enlisting students for their future roles as fighters. The pressures that the
public puts before the education system to produce citizen-warriors, to inculcate the
values of narrow patriotic unity, to suppress dissenting voices, should be faced with an
expansion of public education’s focus on the love of country, along with an unwavering
commitment to democracy. This dual focus is properly manifested in the endorsement of
a public historical understanding of national membership as shared fate. It should be
understood and practiced in the context of war as a commitment of the public education
system to work with the more productive aspects of belligerent citizenship to support
endurance while maintaining democratic affiliations.
Teaching patriotism in a way that will expand its limits and enrich it with further
perspectives supports the immediate needs of society to unite in order to endure conflict,
as well as its longer term aims of preserving democracy and its basic value structure. In
addition, the educational effort to expose future citizens to the broader possibilities
contained under the umbrella term ‘patriotism’ can promote the democratic educational
aim of autonomy as well. As I suggested, wartime or belligerent patriotism is analyzed by
some social and political psychologists as an uncritical response to fear and the sense of
vulnerability to impending threat. The rally around the flag effect after 9/11, for example,
was an attempt to make sense of the unfathomable violence and destruction; uniting as
Americans gave political meaning to the attacks. In addition the patriotic unity made it
possible to exchange the feelings of vulnerability and fear with those of bravery,
camaraderie and hope. With the continuation of the conflict, and the ensuing belligerent
25
conceptualization of citizenship, the narrow form of patriotism lost some of its rigid
aspects as well as its social value. Still it defines to a large extent the ways in which
social institutions, and parts of the public, envision membership in the nation. Hence
patriotism, ideally characterized as an aspect of one’s identity as well as a shared project
one participates in, should be more autonomously chosen for it to properly correspond
with the requirements of democratic education. Choosing among varied understandings
and manifestations of the love of country provides a way out of the ‘hounded woman’
problem, by providing us with options that go beyond the confining conceptualizations
which impede our autonomy.
Expanding the notion of patriotism as reflected and molded in the educational
process can provide the conditions for realizing this demand. By presenting students with
a more varied notion of patriotism, and soliciting from them a host of perspectives on the
relations between citizen and nation-state, teachers can support its autonomous
acceptance (or rejection). They can simultaneously support the infiltration of expanded
notions of patriotism into the public sphere, which would be both accepting of the need to
unite in times of war, and of the democratic claim for diversity and inclusion.
The teaching of national sentiments and patriotism should thus be accepted as part
of the curriculum, much as deliberation on forms of patriotism should become part and
parcel of the discussions of democratic affiliations and commitments. Creating citizens is
the first and foremost responsibility of a public education system in a democratic country.
A country that aims to maintain the democratic commitments of its citizenry in order to
ensure the perseverance of democracy through times of conflict can never subordinate its
“long range values,” even in the face of the “life and death needs of today or tomorrow.”
26
Moreover, the pressures that the public puts before the education system to
produce citizen-warriors, to inculcate the values of narrow patriotic unity, to suppress
dissenting voices, should be faced with an unwavering commitment to democracy on the
part of the education system. Preserving democracy can go hand in hand with endorsing a
public historical understanding of national membership as shared fate. It should be
understood and practiced in the context of war as a commitment of the public education
system to work with the more productive aspects of belligerent citizenship and patriotism
to support endurance while maintaining democratic affiliations. Thus the teaching of
patriotism should not be abandoned, but expanded to include further perspectives into a
wider framework of democratic education.
27
References
Archard, D. (1999) ‘Should We Teach Patriotism?’ Studies in Philosophy and Education 18(3), pp. 157173.
Bar-Tal D. (1996) Obstacles on the Path toward Peace, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Barzilai, G. (1992) Democracy in Time of War: Conflict and Consensus in Israel. Tel Aviv, Israel: Sifriat
Poalim [Hebrew]
Brighouse H. (2000) School Choice and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000.
- (2003) ‘Should We Teach Patriotic History? in K.McDonough and W. Feinberg (eds.)
Citizenship and Education in Liberal-Democratic Societies: Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and
Collective Identities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000) Chomsky on Miseducation, ed. Donaldo Macedo, Boston, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Firer, R. (2002) ‘The Gordian Knot Between Peace Education and War Education’ in G. Salomon and B.
Nevo (eds.) Peace Education: The Concepts, Principles and Practices Around the World, pp. 56-62.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giroux, H. (2003) The Abandoned Generation: Democracy Beyond the Culture of Fear New-York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Graff, G. (1992) Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts can Revitalize American
Education, New York: W. W. Norton & co.
Gutmann, A. (1999) Democratic Education Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1999.
- (2002) ‘Civic Minimalism, Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism: Where does Democratic Education
Stand in Relation to Each?’ in S. Macedo and Y. Tamir (eds.) Moral and Political Education, pp. 23-57,
Nomos XLIII, New York University Press.
Hardin, R. (2004) ‘Civil Liberties in an Era of Mass Terrorism,’ The Journal of Ethics 8(1): 77-95.
Ignatieff, M. (2004) The Lesser Evil, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Janowitz, M. (1983) The Reconstruction of Patriotism: Education for Civic Consciousness, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
28
Kersh, R. (2003) ‘Civic Engagement and National Belonging’ in Constructing Civic Virtue: A Symposium
on the State of American Citizenship. New York: Campbell Public Affairs Institute.
Kimmerling, B. (1993) The Interrupted System: Israeli Civilians in War and Routine Times, New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Loewen, J. (1995) Lies My Teachers Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,
New York: New Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1995) “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” In Theorizing Citizenship, ed. Ronald Beiner, 209-228.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Marsden, W.E. (2000) ‘`Poisoned history’: a comparative study of nationalism, propaganda and the
treatment of war and peace in the late Nineteenth- and early Twentieth-century school curriculum’ History
of Education. 29 (1) January 2000, pp. 29-49.
Nash, G. Crabtree, C. Dunn, R.E. (1999) History on Trial,New York: Knopf.
Nussbaum , M. (1994) ‘Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,’ Boston Review
Ravitch, D (2003) The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
- (2004) ‘A Consumer’s Guide to High School History Textbooks’
http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=329 [accessed March 2, 2004]
- (2005) ‘American History 101: The Crisis in Education’ Slate Magazine debate with John
Wiener, May 17-19, 2005. www.slate.com [accessed May 19, 2005].
Rawls J. (1971), A theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1988) The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rorty, R. (1999) Achieving Our Country, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, S. (2003) Boundaries and Allegiances Oxford University Press.
Schlesinger, A.M. (1938) ‘Introduction’, in A. Walworth, School Histories at War: Study of the Treatment
of Wars in the Secondary School History Books of the United States and in those of its Former Enemies
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scott, J. F. (1926) , The Menace of Nationalism in Education, G. Allen & Unwin: London.
29
Sewall, G.T. (2000) History Textbooks at the New Century. A Report of the American Textbooks Council,
New York.
Smith, R. (2003) Stories of Peoplehood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, S.M. (2003) Effective State Standards for U.S. History: A 2003 Report Card.
http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=320#940 [accessed January 4, 2004]
The Albert Shanker Institute (2003), Education for Democracy http://www.ashankerinst.org/education.html
[accessed March 7, 2005]
Yack, B. (forthcoming) Nation and Individual: Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community in
Modern Political Life.
30